Bruce Nilles | Gristhttps://grist.org
A planet that doesn’t burn, a future that doesn’t suckThu, 22 Feb 2018 04:54:09 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/330e84b0272aae748d059cd70e3f8f8d?s=96&d=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.wp.com%2Fi%2Fbuttonw-com.pngBruce Nilles | Gristhttps://grist.org
Blowing in the right direction: Two big wind projects are moving forwardhttps://grist.org/climate-energy/a-good-move-for-wind/
Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:59:46 +0000http://grist.org/?p=116085As we continue to retire aging dirty coal plant after aging dirty coal plant nationwide (we just hit 112 coal plants secured to retire), we are also pushing hard to replace them with clean energy, and as little natural gas as possible. That’s why we were excited this week to see two very large clean energy announcements from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

First, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced the completion of the final environmental impact statement for a massive Wyoming wind farm. The Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project would be comprised of up to 1,000 wind turbines across private and federal land in southeastern Wyoming, and generate up to 2,500 megawatts of clean energy.

This is a great move for a state where coal mining is devastating a beautiful and critical area — the Powder River Basin. More wind power in Wyoming could mean less coal mining and fewer coal trains and coal plants in the West. It is also a smart move for a state that sees itself as an energy powerhouse, and wants to keep this role in a future that will have little to no coal in it.

It’s also approximately the same amount of power coming from one of the dirtiest coal plants in the West — the Colstrip plant in Montana. Colstrip’s pollution dirties the region’s air — including the beautiful vistas of Yellowstone National Park. The kicker is that this plant is co-owned by Puget Sound Energy, the power company that provides electricity to western Washington State, including progressive companies like REI and Microsoft. (Full disclosure: We have an ongoing campaign to get Puget Sound Energy out of the dirty coal business and put its customers’ money into clean energy that does not contribute to global warming.)

We look forward to reviewing the final environmental impact statement for these two large wind projects in Wyoming, and working with BLM to ensure that there are adequate conservation measures for two struggling bird species, the Golden Eagle and the Greater Sage Grouse.

The second great piece of news was Salazar’s announcement that the Interior Department finalized the environmental review for wind projects offshore from Rhode Island and Massachusetts:

The environmental assessment for the Rhode Island/Massachusetts Wind Energy Area will be used by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to inform future leasing decisions as part of the Administration’s “Smart from the Start” offshore wind energy initiative. The Wind Energy Area (WEA) comprises approximately 164,750 acres within the area of mutual interest identified by the two states.

Offshore wind in this area has the potential to create jobs and provide clean energy for Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York, as projects in this area could tie into all of those states.

We are pushing hard to ensure offshore wind projects move forward and that they are sited and designed in a way to protect endangered species, such as the extremely rare North Atlantic Right Whale. The release of this environmental review is an important next step by the Obama administration to help retire the remaining coal plants in the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions, end the practice of mountaintop-removal coal mining, and power the region with clean energy for decades to come.

The next step to realize the many benefits of offshore wind and catch up with the European and Asian countries that are already installing offshore wind projects is for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) and Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) to support contracts for offshore wind projects as their colleagues in Rhode Island and Massachusetts have done.

As the Eastern Seaboard settles in for another weekend of record-breaking temperatures, with hundreds of thousands of homes without power from last week’s epic storm, it is increasingly clear that we need to accelerate the transition from energy sources that cause global warming to energy sources that don’t sacrifice our future. This change won’t happen anytime soon in Congress. It will happen, and is happening, state by state and city by city. Please join us in this struggle for our future.

]]>good-newspaper_180x150.jpgwind-turbine-carouselThe outlook dimmed for coal in 2010https://grist.org/article/2010-12-22-this-year-the-outlook-dimmed-for-coal/
https://grist.org/article/2010-12-22-this-year-the-outlook-dimmed-for-coal/#respondFri, 24 Dec 2010 02:03:31 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-12-22-this-year-the-outlook-dimmed-for-coal/The coal industry is taking its lumps.Some may describe 2010 as a tough year for those of us working to protect clean air, create clean energy jobs, and combat global warming. Some will say that the coal industry still has a headlock on our political system in Washington, evidenced by the Senate’s failure to adopt comprehensive clean energy and global warming legislation.

But the reality is that 2010 was a rough year for the coal industry, as dozens of proposed new coal plants were taken off the drawing board and utilities announced the retirement of 12,000 megawatts of old coal plants (enough to power 12 million homes). While federal climate legislation may have stalled in Congress in 2010, that is only part of the story, and misses the fundamental change that is sweeping across America at the state and local level. Cities and states have taken the lead to end coal’s pollution, as well as its stranglehold on the nation’s politics and economy. That has created a huge opening into which clean energy has jumped with record investments.

Organized citizens are shaping the future, step by step, and dismantling the hold coal has enjoyed on our politics for far too long. Americans are bringing about the clean energy future.

The call for clean energy has been especially strong on the more than 50 campuses nationwide where students are organizing to move beyond coal. Just this year the University of North Carolina, University of Illinois, Western Kentucky University, Cornell, and University of Louisvillehave all made coal-free commitments.

From the mine to the plant to the unregulated ash dump, 2010 took a toll on coal.

Most new mountaintop-removal coal-mining permits are on hold while the Environmental Protection Agency determines if they meet clean-water protection standards. The agency has also recommended a rare veto on one of the largest mines ever proposed, the Spruce mine in West Virginia. The final veto is expected soon.

Any projects hoping to move forward will find it harder to get financing now as more and more banks are joining the growing list of those passing public policies limiting their financial relationships with mountaintop-removal coal operators.

The rush to build new coal plants has slowed to a trickle. What began in 2001 with plans to build more than 150 new coal-fired power plants has fizzled. Citizen opposition, rising costs, and increased accountability have stopped 149 of these proposed coal plants. Since October 2008, not a single new coal plant has started construction in the U.S., and the Energy Information Agency now projects that no new coal plants will be built in 2011 without significant incentives.

This same widespread public concern for people’s health and the future of the U.S. economy that stemmed the flow of new coal plants is also behind a new trend: an unprecedented number of utilities are opting to close dirty and outdated existing coal plants.

The nation’s more than 500 existing coal plants are responsible for the bulk of the air pollution that makes it unsafe to breathe in many of our urban areas, and that also contributes to the unnecessary deaths of 24,000 Americans each year. As just one example, in Washington, D.C., this year, there were 32 days when it was unsafe to breathe, mostly during the summer months when kids and families were outside. For those of us who live with loved ones suffering from asthma and other lung ailments, this deadly legacy cannot end soon enough.

Most of the country’s coal plants were built before 1980, and many lack modern pollution controls. As much-needed new rules go into effect that will protect people from the toxic air pollution, soot, smog, and coal ash spewing from these outdated coal plants, the wave of coal-plant retirements is expected to continue.

It’s clear that the way forward for America is in clean, renewable energy, and that’s where an increasing number of utilities, developers, states, and communities are putting their investments.

Congratulations and thanks to all those hard-working Americans fighting for better energy in our nation. This holiday season, let’s celebrate the important progress we have made in 2010 outside of Washington. Here’s to continued victories in 2011 as we move the nation beyond coal and build the clean energy future!

]]>https://grist.org/article/2010-12-22-this-year-the-outlook-dimmed-for-coal/feed/0gifts_BagOfCoal.jpgcoal in your stockingBlogging Begins from New Sierra Club Beyond Coal Director Mary Anne Hitthttps://grist.org/article/2010-12-03-blogging-begins-from-new-sierra-club-beyond-coal-director-mary/
https://grist.org/article/2010-12-03-blogging-begins-from-new-sierra-club-beyond-coal-director-mary/#respondSat, 04 Dec 2010 02:36:56 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=41458Today I am officially turning over the blog reins to Mary Anne Hitt, the new Director of the Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign. She will now be blogging weekly on important coal and clean energy issues – so I urge you to bookmark her blog. Her first post is up now.

Mary Anne has been with the Sierra Club for two years, serving first as the Deputy Director of the Beyond Coal Campaign. Before coming to the Club, she was the Executive Director of Appalachian Voices and co-founded ILoveMountains.org, an online campaign to end mountaintop removal coal mining that received national recognition for innovation and impact.

She was also previously the executive director of the Ecology Center and the Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project. Mary Anne is a senior fellow of the Environmental Leadership Program.

She received her Master’s of Science from the University of Montana, where she received the Len and Sandy Sargent Environmental Advocacy Award, and her Bachelor’s degree from the University of Tennessee, where she was a Whittle Scholar and the founder of the campus group Students Promoting Environmental Action in Knoxville (SPEAK), and where she later received the 2008 Notable UT Woman Award.

Mary Anne grew up in the mountains of east Tennessee and now lives in West Virginia.

We feel very lucky to have Mary Anne’s expertise and I hope you enjoy the insight and inspiration you’ll receive from reading her weekly columns.

(I will still be blogging here from time to time, but not weekly. Mary Anne is now your go-to person for news on our coal campaign and the many issue surrounding the transition from coal to clean energy).

EPA is weighing two options for federal regulation of coal ash. Subtitle D, or as we call it – the Neglect Option, would rely on suggested state guidelines. This is no different from current policies. Despite the known toxicity of coal ash, a vast majority of states do not even require monitoring to see if coal ash is polluting drinking water.

It’s the lack of federal regulation that led to the current failed patchwork of state protections against coal ash and the massive Tennessee coal ash disaster. Simply telling states and the industry that they really should be more careful is not enough.

And of course, this Neglect option is supported by power companies and other big polluters.

And that’s why we support the other option: Subtitle C, or as we call it – the Protect Option. This option would create strong safeguards to protect public health from the threats of coal ash, including mandatory water quality monitoring, record keeping and protections against runoff.

It recognizes that coal ash is substantially more dangerous than household garbage and regulating it like the toxic substance it is will benefit communities and environments across the country.

Coal ash contamination has flown under the radar for far too long. The coal industry should no longer be able to pass off their toxic waste on our communities.

Have you sent your comment to EPA yet? Send it in by Friday, Nov. 19th, at 11:59pm ET.

But just because the deadline is approaching does not mean we’re slowing our action on coal ash. It’s toxic and must be treated as such.

That’s why this week the Sierra Club opened a hotline to help residents report suspected contamination or spills of toxic coal ash across the country. Residents who believe there is toxic coal ash contamination near their homes either from an unreported spill or through leaking ash dumps are asked to call the toll-free hotline: 1-888-314-7450

Reported incidents will be passed on to the proper authorities for investigation and mitigation.

Meanwhile, residents in Kingston, Tenn., are still coping with the aftermath of toxic coal ash almost two years after the massive Tennessee Valley Authority coal ash spill there.

Alexandra Cousteau just released this very good video about her visit to Kingston in September of this year to see how the recovery is going.

We can help prevent future coal ash disasters like the one in Kingston. Coal ash is hazardous, but less strictly controlled than household garbage.

]]>https://grist.org/article/2010-11-11-new-coal-ash-hotline-and-video/feed/0Why is the U.S. helping finance fossil fuels overseas?https://grist.org/article/2010-11-10-why-is-the-u-s-helping-finance-fossil-fuels-overseas/
https://grist.org/article/2010-11-10-why-is-the-u-s-helping-finance-fossil-fuels-overseas/#respondThu, 11 Nov 2010 03:41:53 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-10-why-is-the-u-s-helping-finance-fossil-fuels-overseas/This post was co-written by Justin Guay of the Sierra Club International Climate Program.

In a blog post this week, United States Export-Import Bank President Fred Hochberg paints a rosy picture of future trade relations between the United States and key emerging markets such as India and South Africa — one which envisions a revamped American economy fueled by export trade that feeds a growing middle class.

Yet despite this rhetoric, Ex-Im Bank is not only failing to finance a clean energy economy, but it is also saddling dynamic emerging markets with 19th century fuels by propping up an industry only able to survive in a 21st century economy through political maneuvering, enormous subsidies, and misleading PR campaigns.

To underscore Ex-Im Bank’s failure one need look back no further than last Friday, Nov. 5, when the board voted on the greenhouse gas implications of the enormous 4,800 megawatt Kusile coal-fired power plant in the Mpumalanga province of South Africa.

The vote, based on the Bank’s carbon policy, is meant to weed out high carbon intensity projects and promote low carbon lending. If ever there were a project that failed to meet such criteria, it is Kusile, which alone will emit over 36 million tons of carbon dioxide annually while increasing South Africa’s emissions by 9.7 percent.

What’s more, this is a project Ex-Im Bank is willing to consider despite the fact that South Africa has not yet concluded its second integrated resource plan (IRP2) and climate strategy processes. This violates Ex-Im Bank’s policy for highly carbon intensive project financing, which requires that “[t]he host country shall have developed a Low Carbon Growth Plan or Strategy and the project must be consistent with the results and objectives of that Plan.”

Sadly, this is merely the latest in a growing trend which has seen Ex-Im Bank’s fossil fuel financing skyrocket in recent years [PDF]. Just a few months back, despite initially rejecting a similarly enormous Sasan coal-fired power plant in India, the Bank flip-flopped and decided to support the project. Then in a cynical attempt to gloss over this disastrous decision, the Bank pointed to a non-binding memorandum of understanding with Reliance (the Indian company responsible for the project) to build 250 megawatts of solar power as its “positive impact” on the project.

The Bank currently has a congressional directive to use 10 percent of its portfolio to finance renewable energy, which would generate roughly $2 billion in financing. However, it achieves a meager 0.5-1 percent per annum, clearly failing in its mission to help build this strategic sector. Such discrepancies are critical as the Bank pursues President Obama’s National Export Initiative, which seeks to double exports over five years. Without a serious shift in lending, this initiative will create the perverse incentive to prioritize these large-scale fossil fuel projects at the expense of the nascent clean technology export sector.

Sierra Club members submitted more than 7,000 comments and wrote more than 500 letters to Ex-Im Bank President Hochberg demanding that he promote 21st century American job growth by promoting technologies that create 13.5 jobs for every million dollars invested (compared to only 3.7 in oil and gas and 4.9 in coal).

In order to repair our sagging economy, put Americans back to work, and sustainably power the growing middle class in these dynamic emerging markets, Ex-Im Bank must not only talk the talk, it must walk the walk.

]]>https://grist.org/article/2010-11-10-why-is-the-u-s-helping-finance-fossil-fuels-overseas/feed/0money_shower.jpgCoal industry continues its shady practiceshttps://grist.org/article/2010-11-04-coal-industry-continues-its-shady-practices/
https://grist.org/article/2010-11-04-coal-industry-continues-its-shady-practices/#respondFri, 05 Nov 2010 01:51:01 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-04-coal-industry-continues-its-shady-practices/My colleague said it well yesterday in his response to Tuesday’s election results — we will not cede our future to polluters, who again poured tens of millions of dollars into various campaigns.

No surprise here, the coal industry is part of those polluters throwing money around to support candidates who will keep the loopholes and handouts in place and help them block any action on global warming. According to an election spending report from the Center for American Progress:

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) has spent more than $16.3 million in 2010, including $3,005,540 on a national ad and buys in Washington, D.C., Montana, and Texas over the last three months. The group has budgeted $20 million for online campaigns. This Big Coal front group is infamous for its forged letters to members of Congress opposing clean energy and climate legislation that resulted in a congressional investigation.

In 2007, under then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Bremby had the courage to reject the massive proposed Sunflower coal plant because of its impacts on global warming. Global warming, Bremby argued, threatened the health and welfare of all Kansans.

After the state legislature enacted new legislation that attempted to eliminate Bremby’s authority to reject the permit and Sebelius was called to Washington to serve as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Parkinson struck a deal with Sunflower Corporation to fast-track the coal plant permit.

However, Bremby remained firm that he was not rushing the permitting and he had an obligation to ensure a fair and open public process and fulfill his legal duties to review the permit’s legality before it could be issued.

But on Tuesday, with everyone consumed with election coverage, Parkinson fired Bremby. This was a crass political move to ensure the permit is issued before the governor leaves office in January 2011.

And another example of coal’s corruption comes from Indiana, where Duke Energy is under investigation because “[a] top attorney in the Indiana Utilities Regulatory Commission took a job with Duke, which he appears to have negotiated at the same time he was overseeing decisions about Duke’s new power plant.”

The Duke plant is already under construction (and $1.3 billion over-budget) and will continue construction during this ethics investigation.

Meanwhile in Kentucky, coal isn’t just proving itself unethical again, it’s proving itself dangerous. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) announced yesterday it is asking a federal judge to shut down a Massey Energy coal mine in protect workers there. This the first time the MSHA has ever used this power.

In filing for a preliminary injunction in U.S. District Court, the government cites persistently dangerous conditions in Massey Energy’s Freedom Mine No. 1 in Pike County … The Freedom Mine employs about 130 miners and was cited for safety violations more than 700 times this year alone.

Coal is dirty and dangerous, and our politics and our health are at risk as long as the coal industry maintains its lock on our energy sector.

That is why our work is so very important. We are not giving up and we are not done.

]]>https://grist.org/article/2010-11-04-coal-industry-continues-its-shady-practices/feed/0Texas' Fight Against Coal and Coal Ashhttps://grist.org/article/2010-10-28-texas-fight-against-coal-and-coal-ash/
https://grist.org/article/2010-10-28-texas-fight-against-coal-and-coal-ash/#respondFri, 29 Oct 2010 00:22:34 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=40609This is the latest in our series of community coal ash profiles. This piece was written by Sierra Club Apprentice Sari Ancel.

Here’s lovely daydream if you’re from southeast Texas: It’s a warm fall afternoon and you’re out fishing on the banks of the Colorado River, listening to the sounds of birds migrating south.

Unfortunately, a proposed coal-fired power plant will soon ruin that daydream. There will be no fish to catch because their habitat has long been polluted. Those birds overhead will be flying through smoke plumes from the nearby coal-fired power plant. And forget a quiet afternoon, you’ll be hearing the hum of that nearby power plant.

This is exactly what threatens Bay City, Texas – the proposed White Stallion coal-fired power plant.

Yet despite this latest permit, residents of Bay City are not convinced that their air will stay clean or that their community will remain safe in the coming years – and for good reason. According to research, over its entire lifecycle, the plant will cause 600 premature deaths and cost over $5 billion in external costs to the community.

Alison Sliva of the Matagorda County No Coal Coalition is helping lead the fight against White Stallion coal plant. The 1320-megawatt plant will burn petroleum coke and coal but it is not required to produce an Environmental Impact Statement.

“The more you learn about this stuff, the more it makes you sick to your stomach,” said Sliva, “It is so incredibly wrong the way things work.”

She is worried about the environmental and health impacts this new coal plant will have on Bay City, a small city close to the Gulf Coast known for farming, shrimping, and world-class bird watching.

In addition to health impacts, the plant will require seven billion gallons of fresh Colorado River water every year. This fresh water is already a limited resource, with area farmers experiencing a severe drought in 2009.

“Water is the most finite commodity we have that the state is already fighting over,” said Sliva. “And we’re giving water to the dirty coal plant but not to our local food growers.”

The White Stallion power plant design has also proposed coal ash dump sites just miles away from the Colorado River. Coal ash, which is the toxic waste left behind after coal is burned, contains arsenic, selenium, lead, and mercury. The dump site proposals are open coal ash pits, a design that is exceedingly dangerous when considering how prone this coastal area is to hurricanes. Bay City residents were asked to evacuate for hurricanes Ike and Rita.

The area also gets an average of 42 inches of rainfall yearly, and Silva and her fellow residents have yet to see an adequate coal ash flood plan from White Stallion

“I’m very concerned about the coal ash because it is virtually unregulated,” she said. “We’re going to have mountains of it. We have a shallow water table and we’re worried about it leeching into the groundwater…I’m hoping that the (Environmental Protection Agency) comes through to regulate the coal ash.”

If EPA enacts stricter safeguards, then Sliva and the residents of Bay City will have one less problem to worry about with the White Stallion plant.

Unfortunately, that would still not be enough to fully protect Bay City. While the White Stallion plant promises job creation, this does not account for the Bay City jobs lost because farmers won’t have enough water for irrigation and the impacts on the fishing industry due to polluted waters.

“We have a small rural community with little political clout,” said Sliva. “We were targeted because they didn’t think anyone would fight it.”

But Sliva and other members of Bay City have proven that wrong by fighting and gaining momentum against White Stallion coal plant.

“Bay City’s motto isn’t Beaches, Bay, Birding, and Coal Plant'” says Sliva. But, to stop this from happening, “people need to be calling, emailing, faxing, and writing letters to keep this issue in front of the faces of the agencies and elected officials. Keep waving the red flag and raise it up.”

]]>https://grist.org/article/2010-10-28-texas-fight-against-coal-and-coal-ash/feed/0One More Thing to Worry About in Middle School – Energy Regulations?https://grist.org/article/2010-10-22-one-more-thing-to-worry-about-in-middle-school-energy/
https://grist.org/article/2010-10-22-one-more-thing-to-worry-about-in-middle-school-energy/#respondFri, 22 Oct 2010 23:05:27 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=40473 Mary Anne Hitt, the director of the Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign, is a new mom and has some words for those trying to greenwash schoolkids and college students:

As a new mom, I’m paying more attention these days to how big companies are trying to influence our kids. I just learned that one of the biggest blockers of climate action in the U.S. is now bringing its obstructionism to your kid’s middle school classroom. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy just released an energy education guide for teachers of 5th – 8th grade.

“What do you think could happen if one of our energy sources was suddenly unavailable (e.g., power plant maintenance, government curb on production, etc.)?”

Outside the classroom, the Chamber is working overtime to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from doing anything about global warming pollution. Of course, EPA would never put this nation in a position where “one of our energy sources was suddenly unavailable.” But that doesn’t stop the Chamber from suggesting that scary scenario to our nation’s kids and their teachers.

Now they’re focusing on instilling their wrong beliefs into our kids. Just look at the focus of their Institute for 21st Century Energy:

“The mission of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy is to unify policymakers, regulators, business leaders, and the American public behind a common sense energy strategy to help keep America secure, prosperous, and clean. Through policy development, education, and advocacy, the Institute is building support for meaningful action at the local, state, national, and international levels.”

Sounds innocent enough, but after watching the Chamber spend millions against any action on cleaning up the dirty power plants that poison our air and water and cause global warming, it seems that we all know their real “common sense energy strategy” – make sure polluters can keep on polluting at current levels, regardless of the impact on today’s kids and future generations.

Right now EPA is proposing several safeguards to protect Americans from the pollution caused by coal-fired power plants – including rules that would treat coal ash (the by-product of burning coal for electricity) as the toxic waste that it is. EPA officials have already said that living near a toxic coal ash site can be worse for kids’ health than smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.

The Chamber doesn’t like these proposals, or any others that would require utilities to clean up coal pollution, and they are working overtime to stop them.

And this isn’t the first time that the Chamber or the coal industry has directly targeted kids or young people with a misleading pro-coal message.

The list goes on and on. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the coal industry want you to believe that coal will not affect your or your children’s health, and that any action by EPA will destroy the economy. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

So for my new baby and the rest of America’s kids, I’d like to add my own discussion question to the Chamber’s energy education guide:

“What do you think could happen if we don’t shift from coal and oil to clean energy sources, and families find that pollution makes the basic essentials of life suddenly unavailable (e.g., clean air, clean water, etc.)?”

]]>https://grist.org/article/2010-10-22-one-more-thing-to-worry-about-in-middle-school-energy/feed/0The Aftermath of the TVA Coal Ash Disasterhttps://grist.org/article/the-aftermath-of-the-tva-coal-ash-disaster/
https://grist.org/article/the-aftermath-of-the-tva-coal-ash-disaster/#respondFri, 22 Oct 2010 00:53:53 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=40446This is the latest in our series of community coal ash profiles. This was written by Sierra Club Apprentice Philip Hawes.

Tennessee’s Emory River has long been treasured for its natural beauty.

In 1867, when a young man by the name of John Muir decided to walk from his home in Indiana, all the way to Florida, he crossed the Emory River. Its beauty struck him, and he wrote the following in his journal (which became his famed book “A Thousand-Mile Walk to the Gulf”):

“There is nothing more eloquent in Nature than a mountain stream, and this is the first I ever saw. Its banks are luxuriantly peopled with rare and lovely flowers and overarching trees, making one of Nature’s coolest and most hospitable places. Every tree, every flower, every ripple and eddy of this lovely stream seemed solemnly to feel the presence of the great Creator. Lingered in this sanctuary a long time thanking the Lord with all my heart for his goodness in allowing me to enter and enjoy it.”

Unfortunately, 141 years later, the Emory River would inspire sorrow.

On December 22, 2008, a little before 1 a.m., an earthen dam holding back an 84-acre coal ash disposal pond, collapsed. A flood of 1.1 billion gallons (around six times the amount of BP’s oil disaster) of coal ash slurry poured into the Emory River and onto the surrounding land. Coal ash is the by-product of burning coal for electricity and contains toxic materials such as arsenic, lead, mercury, and selenium. The spill covered more than 400 acres and destroyed houses, roads, and trees in its path.

“It was unreal. There’s no way to imagine what it was like,” said Steve Scarborough, a resident of Roane County, where the disaster took place. “They keep saying it’s an ash spill. That’s like saying an avalanche is a snow spill.”

The earthen dam that failed had problems for years, including multiple leaks. And Scarborough, a civil engineer himself, said that the fixes they made were inadequate, based on bad engineering, and chosen just to cut costs. According to Scarborough, it was “just sheer incompetence. And the community suffered because of it.”

Scarborough owns two properties on a lake adjacent to the spill site. He had purchased them ten years earlier as an investment. Before the disaster he had both properties on the market, deciding to sell them in order to put his kids through college. But now, he said, “They’re worth pennies on the dollar.”

Despite the national real estate market being down in late 2008, the real estate values in the area were relatively strong – until they crumbled following the coal ash disaster.

Scarborough said, “Even in the worst of times there are still people retiring, and we are that market. This is where they retire to. The value of waterfront properties had not yet declined.” But afterwards, no one wanted to buy property, even miles away.

He spoke of one couple that decided against waterfront property in Roane County after hearing about the coal ash disaster: “The wife saw the newspaper and they stormed out. They bought waterfront property; they just bought it the next county.”

Many land owners sued the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which operates the coal plant and coal ash disposal site responsible for the disaster, for the lost value of their property. But Scarborough said that to get money for their property, many of the people signed settlements with TVA that included a gag order and a waiver for any future health problems. Scarborough hasn’t filed a lawsuit with TVA, saying he’s just “trying to get TVA to do the right thing. Whatever’s fair.” But, he added, “They just don’t want to do it.”

The economic problems due to the disaster aren’t limited to real estate. The tourism industry in the area has also been severely hurt, and Scarborough said that’s affected the entire local economy, calling it “economic devastation.”

The cost of cleanup could end up totaling $1 billion, in addition to lost property value, lost tourism, and the effects it has had on the rest of the local economy, as well as possible health risks.

Following the disaster, TVA performed a health study to find out if any health problems had been caused by the spill. But, Scarborough said, the study was very incomplete. Out of the 200 volunteers that participated in the study, only a small handful actually lived in the immediate area.

“The study came out saying that there are no health effects. That’s total bullsh-t. They’re putting their heads in the sand. And they’re trying to push our heads in the sand.” He continued, “If you believe TVA, I’ve got a couple lakeside lots to show you.”

For the almost two years since the disaster occurred, TVA has been dredging coal ash out of the water, putting it into rail cars, and sending it to Alabama to another disposal site. Scarborough said they fill around 100 rail cars a day with the material.

TVA claims to have removed around 90% of the coal ash, but Scarborough believes isn’t true. He says as they’re dredging, they pick up a lot of sediment along with the ash. Any material that is less than half sediment is classified as coal ash, which means a lot of what they’re picking up isn’t actually coal ash.

Above all, Scarborough is tired of coal companies avoiding responsibility for their mistakes.

“If we put a rock through someone’s window, we have to buy a new window, and that doesn’t seem to be the case with these coal companies. TVA is in denial – they aren’t owning up to what they’ve done.”

Scarborough said that the disaster in Tennessee wouldn’t have happened if EPA had already passed federal safeguards for coal ash disposal.

“Having seen the results of lax oversight, we feel we have to campaign for the most stringent regulatory option,” he said. “This cannot be left to the states where lobbyists wield oversized power on compliant legislators. We don’t want anyone else to go through what we’ve been through.”

Scarborough points out that the coal ash from the Tennessee disaster that has been shipped to Alabama still hasn’t gone away. “To be honest with you, the remedy, where they’re storing the ash now, it’s not contained. They just built a wall around it.” Since there still aren’t yet any federal regulations, the same coal ash that caused so much destruction in Tennessee still isn’t being stored in a safe manner.

Scarborough calls Roane County stunningly beautiful and is hopeful for the time years from now when the mess is cleaned up. But about John Muir’s famous walk, he says, “He’d be pretty disappointed in what he saw if he was there today.”

]]>https://grist.org/article/the-aftermath-of-the-tva-coal-ash-disaster/feed/0EPA recommends protecting clean water by rejecting giant W.Va. coal minehttps://grist.org/article/epa-recommends-protecting-clean-water-by-rejecting-giant-wv-coal-mine/
https://grist.org/article/epa-recommends-protecting-clean-water-by-rejecting-giant-wv-coal-mine/#respondSat, 16 Oct 2010 01:38:08 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/epa-recommends-protecting-clean-water-by-rejecting-giant-wv-coal-mine/Will the proposed Spruce Mine site ultimately escape this fate?Hot off the presses: The EPA just announced it is recommending rejecting the massive Spruce Mine in Logan County, W.Va., for the simple reason that it can’t comply with long-standing clean water protections. EPA Region 3 Administrator Shawn Garvin recommended that the permit for Spruce be withdrawn.

In short, this proposed mountaintop removal coal mine would release huge amounts of toxic pollution into the state’s waterways. That has been illegal across the country and today EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is proposing the same protections for Appalachia.

Today’s recommendation flows from President Obama’s and Jackson’s commitment to restore science and uphold our bedrock Clean Water Act. The EPA is proposing to take the radical step to ensure that the residents of Appalachia have the same clean water protections afforded other residents around the country.

For far too long, Appalachia’s residents have been subjected to pollution from coal mining practices that would be prohibited elsewhere in the United States. There are so many local grassroots heroes who have spent more than a decade fighting this massive mountaintop removal coal mine.

As we have worked with our members and allies in Appalachia to tell the story nationwide about the incredible destruction associated with mountaintop removal mining, the overwhelming response we hear outside of Appalachia is “How can that be allowed to happen in the United States?”

This decision is long overdue. During the Bush administration, hundreds of mines were approved, dozens of mountains were razed, and pollution killed stream after stream after stream. The Sierra Club and our allies are working to stop this pollution, and recently a federal court ordered a $45 million clean up of an existing mine, but it is far better to not approve these mines in the first place.

The next step is for Jackson to put the final nail in this destructive project and finalize her decision. This decision should then guide the agency to do what the science and public health demands — end the practice of mountaintop removal mining once and for all. We need a uniform rule that says no more mountaintop removal mining, period.

Let’s put this devastating practice behind us. Let’s put residents to work restoring the land and waters damaged by coal mining over the past decades. And let’s overcome the naysayers who oppose Appalachia sharing in the jobs and economic development that comes with building a clean, renewable energy future.

]]>https://grist.org/article/epa-recommends-protecting-clean-water-by-rejecting-giant-wv-coal-mine/feed/011Mountaintopremoved.jpgMountaintop removalCoping with Coal Ash's Health Effectshttps://grist.org/article/coping-with-coal-ashs-health-effects/
https://grist.org/article/coping-with-coal-ashs-health-effects/#respondThu, 14 Oct 2010 22:42:00 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=40312This is the latest in our series of community coal ash profiles. This piece was written by Sierra Club Apprentice Lydia Avila.

The community of Joliet, Illinois, identifies as many things – Midwestern, humble, and hard-working. Yet they also identify with something much less positive: being collateral damage. According to Joliet residents, they don’t even merit a second thought to Midwest Generation, a coal-fired power plant that has been dumping toxic coal ash near Joliet for over 40 years.

Coal ash is the byproduct of burning coal for electricity, and it’s having a major impact on Joliet. Residents say if you were to spend a week in Joliet you would find yourself driving through coal ash fog; a stroll in your yard would cause you to come back covered in “black stuff” and/or yellow particulates; you wouldn’t be able to drink or bathe in the water; and your clothes would come out of the washer tinted orange and black from the chemicals in the water.

If you spent time in Joliet, residents say, you would see this “black stuff” covering your car, yard and house on a daily basis, and you certainly could not fish in any of the lakes, rivers or streams in the area.

But, they added, even worse are the health effects that you and your loved ones would experience: nose bleeds, blisters, skin infections, migraines, coughing, gagging, mercury poisoning, neurological disorders, to name a few. And, these would culminate in the form of asthma, kidney transplants, heart transplants, lymphoma, neurological disorders, seizures, rare forms of leukemia, emergency hysterectomies, and lupus (again, just to name a few).

Tammy Thompson knows the health effects first-hand – calling herself and her family part of that collateral damage. Her six-year-old daughter Faith has suffered the effects of living near a coal plant since she was born. Faith’s doctor diagnosed her with Grave’s Disease and recommended that she, and all the children in Joliet, be routinely tested for lead and mercury poisoning.

Thompson recalls times when she often had to struggle to gain composure in her car, while her daughter in the backseat would ask, “What’s that smell, mommy?” and then complain of headaches. She saw her daughter suffer from blisters and sores every time they bathed her in a storage tub filled with bottled water following recommendations from her doctor, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) and others. Yet, for a long time, their health problems remained a mystery.

Thompson and her neighbors have taken matters into their own hands, filing report after report and making phone call after phone call to local, state and federal agencies. When Thompson discusses the actions taken by the people of Joliet, she underscores the fact that this is a human issue: “I’m not an environmentalist, I’m a mom. I’m not an activist, I’m an American,” she said.

Unfortunately, Joliet residents say their concerns have consistently been ignored by every public agency and department that, in theory, is supposed to help them.

The IEPA and local officials play a game of ping pong with their cries for help, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims not to have jurisdiction over the area. The IEPA likes to claim that these diseases occur naturally, but there is nothing natural about the levels at which they occur in Joliet.

On the rare occasions when the IEPA has returned a few a call, agency officials have tried to justify the horrendous living conditions by saying the jobs at the coal plant and its coal ash disposal site are needed.

Thompson says that supposed “gain” certainly pales in comparison to watching her family and friends suffer the health effects. “‘Get use to it and get over it’ is what they try to tell us,” Thompson said.

Not surprisingly, when the Environmental Integrity Project and Sierra Club’s recently released coal ash report, “In Harm’s Way,” Joliet was listed as one of the most contaminated sites in the country. The town of Joliet has received national attention from such figures as Erin Brockovich and, at the time, Senator Obama.

Thompson and her community continue to ask why they aren’t receiving any help. “Why doesn’t the EPA prove something is safe? Why must we wait for a body count to show it’s not?” asked Thompson.

“It’s not an environmental issue; it’s an ethical, social and civil rights issue.”

]]>https://grist.org/article/coping-with-coal-ashs-health-effects/feed/0Oklahoma Town Fights Coal Ashhttps://grist.org/article/oklahoma-town-fights-coal-ash/
https://grist.org/article/oklahoma-town-fights-coal-ash/#respondThu, 07 Oct 2010 23:38:58 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=40175This post is the latest in our series of community coal ash profiles. It was written by Sierra Club Apprentice Flavia de la Fuente.

When a company named Making Money, Having Fun LLC (how’s that for Orwellian?) applied for a permit for a commercial disposal facility to dump coal ash (along with waste oil and gas water) in eastern Oklahoma, they provided geographical maps and documents indicating that, pursuant to the Corporation Commission rules, there was no town of a population below 20,000 within three miles.

Except that’s not true.

The town of Bokoshe (450 people) has been there since the 1800s. You can drive through it, you can stop at the post office, and you can graduate from the high school.

But for Making Money, Having Fun, there is no town and there are no rules. For eight years, they have been dumping waste oil and gas water and driving trucks of toxic coal fly ash (as many as 80 trucks in a single day), the product of a nearby coal-fired power plant run by AES, through the main street in town and dumping it in a pit a mere mile and a half from Bokoshe. Dozens of people in Bokoshe have died of cancer or are battling it right now, and children with asthma wake up in the middle of the night, struggling to breathe, afraid that they’re going to die.

Diane Reece, an elementary school teacher in Bokoshe, protested the fly ash pit from the beginning.

“We didn’t know anything about fly ash at the time,” she said. “When they granted us a meeting downtown, it was a courtesy, because they were going to do it anyways. They haven’t honored any of the promises they made, and they said it was harmless. And we believed them.”

Tim Tanksley, another local Bokoshe resident, also recalls being told not to worry: “They just told everybody it was dirt, that you could put it on your peanut butter and jelly sandwich.”

Choosing a site near Bokoshe was nothing if not predatory. Reece stated, “In small towns you have people who help each other. It’s a beautiful place to live. It’s a wonderful thing to live in a community to help each other. And I feel that they have chosen small towns because we are so trusting. We trusted that they wouldn’t be dumping anything to harm us.”

“They” is a broad term for the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (lead state agency in charge of oil and gas water that issued the original permit), and the Department of Mines (lead agency in charge of reclamation).

To Reece and other Bokoshe residents, also complicit is Oklahoma’s political leadership: the governor who appoints people to these various commissions, the local congressional representative, and the senators from Oklahoma, who in theory are charged with representing the interests of their constituents.

Tim Tanksley appealed directly to Senator James Inhofe and Representative Dan Boren to help, who in turn replied, “The fly ash is temporarily mounded while it is mixed with water to form slurry. Ultimately, the mine will be transformed into a pasture. Therefore, the fly ash mound is temporary and will disappear once the reclamation is complete.”

Meanwhile, Senator Inhofe and Representative Boren are both helping the pit stay open.

According to Harlan Hentges, Oklahoman and attorney for Bokoshe residents, “Senator Inhofe is all over this thing. EPA stopped (the company) from dumping out there. After that happened, the Senator called EPA to find out when they could resume dumping in the pit. Representative Dan Boren did the same thing.”

Hentges has learned to follow the money. “Those businesses pay a whole lot of money to do whatever the hell they want to do. They pay people to exploit the power that they have on their behalf. And you come up with all kinds of interesting ways to justify it. It’s becoming really, really hard to justify in Bokoshe. What is wrong with this? What is so twisted here? Why is it so bad that we don’t think you should dump fly ash into a pit?”

Bokoshe residents are fighting back, and founded B.E. Cause to protect their town, their health, and the future of their children. They’ve tussled with state agencies, with their elected officials, and even with other people in Bokoshe.

There’s a younger generation that is fighting back as well: Diane Reece’s class of sixth graders has taken the kind of initiative that reassures us that small towns are still America’s moral compass.

Thanks to a federal grant program called “Learn and Serve America” there is structured time set aside for Reece’s class (pictured below) to serve their community. Proposals for this year’s program included a “Welcome to Bokoshe” sign and a bench downtown for the gossip group (it’s a small town, after all).

But then three girls raised their hands and said, “We need to stop the fly ash.” Reece asked the class how many people had asthma, and of the 17 students, 9 raised their hands.

Reece recalled, “That was my answer. They started telling me about what it’s like to have asthma. I was listening to them tell me how their attacks made them feel like they were going to die.”

“We’re just getting started,” said Reece, “my sixth graders are leading the cause. The other night at our parent-teacher conference, they got 25 signatures in an hours’ time. And this type of stuff is important, because out here, not everybody has access to computers and the internet. Tonight at the football game, we’re going to pass out flyers about fly ash.”

]]>https://grist.org/article/oklahoma-town-fights-coal-ash/feed/0Peabody Coal's Plan to Save the World…Or Itself?https://grist.org/article/peabody-coals-plan-to-save-the-world-or-itself/
https://grist.org/article/peabody-coals-plan-to-save-the-world-or-itself/#respondWed, 06 Oct 2010 23:57:04 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=40142The coal industry is a filthy business, but that doesn’t stop the industry from spending a fortune on PR consultants to try and distract attention away from the costs it imposes on Americans every day. With labels like “clean coal” and “green coal,” the coal industry’s spinmeisters spend a lot of time and money trying to pretend coal is something it is not.

Now in response to a successful campaign by the Sierra Club and our allies in the United States to stop the construction of new coal plants – we are up to 145 plants stopped – Peabody Energy – the world’s largest coal company – is proposing to grow its market by shipping coal overseas to impoverished countries.

Peabody’s rationale for going overseas? They have a moral duty to alleviate energy poverty in countries that lack access to electricity.

Before exploring Peabody’s new campaign to ship coal overseas, let’s take stock at the industry’s anti-poverty legacy in the United States:

The three poorest counties in America are all in Appalachia’s coal country and have given for decades at the altar of King Coal. And while the coal barons are richer, the counties have nothing but rampant poverty to show for the toxic mess Peabody and its ilk have left behind. Just which country is Peabody imagining aspires to be dominated by coal and look like the poorest parts of Appalachia or the Southern Illinois coalfields?

The $100 billion health costs that coal is imposing on Americans is about the same amount Americans pay in health care costs resulting from smoking, and this is only the cost from particle pollution. It does not include the health care costs from other coal toxins like mercury causing brain disorders, or the environmental costs of fish-less lakes and streams across the Adirondacks and Appalachia. Smoking and coal burning are twin ills, literally killing and maiming Americans every day.

Over the past five years, the Sierra Club and our allies have highlighted coal’s cost on our health and environment and stopped more than 145 new coal plants from breaking ground, effectively ending the industry’s opportunity to grow in the United States. Now in response, the industry is taking another page from the tobacco industry’s playbook: Ship its deadly product overseas

“The greatest crisis we confront in the 21st Century is not a future environmental crisis predicted by computer models, but a human crisis today that is fully within our power to solve. For too long, too many have been focused on the wrong end game,” said [Peabody CEO and Chairman] Gregory Boyce.

“For everyone who has voiced a 2050 greenhouse gas goal, we need 10 people and policy bodies working toward the goal of broad energy access. Only once we have a growing, vibrant, global economy providing energy access and an improved human condition for billions of the energy impoverished can we accelerate progress on environmental issues such as a reduction in greenhouse gases.”

Peabody’s Boyce even had the audacity to say, “We must put people first.” Which people is he referring to? The miners who paid the ultimate price at the Big Branch disaster in April? The 13,000 people who die annually from coal plant pollution?

This PR ploy is ugly and offensive, and an act of desperation. Students at Washington University in St. Louis recently protested Peabody’s Boyce’s appearance at their school: “Alleviating poverty worldwide is something we should all be focusing on, especially as we look at developing a clean energy future that is open to everyone – selling more coal however, will only help pad Peabody’s pockets.”

Just like other dangerous and corrupting corporations before it – read tobacco – the coal industry when feeling the pressure in the U.S. has always tried to target the workers, communities and countries least able to resist their abuses. Today in the U.S., with a national movement to move the country beyond coal there is a bright spotlight on the filthy lifecycle of coal from mining to burning to ash disposal, and the coal industry is running out of places to hide.

It has also run out of growth opportunities in the U.S. and other wealthy countries, and now wants to exports its pollution to developing countries.

Nice try, but we are not going to let this happen.

Mr. Peabody, consider yourself on notice. You can run, but you can’t hide. We will not let you replicate your century of abuse of our workers, of our communities, of our environment, elsewhere in the world. We will use every outlet we have to collaborate with our allies overseas, to alert them that you are offering fool’s gold, that clean energy is cheaper and lacks coal’s polluting and corrupting ways. You will find no resting place.

This latest plan – perhaps your most audacious cynical ploy to date – will fail as surely as your efforts to build 150 new coal plants in the United States.

]]>https://grist.org/article/peabody-coals-plan-to-save-the-world-or-itself/feed/0A Big Coal Ash Problem At Little Bluehttps://grist.org/article/a-big-coal-ash-problem-at-little-blue/
https://grist.org/article/a-big-coal-ash-problem-at-little-blue/#respondFri, 01 Oct 2010 00:00:58 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=40007This post is the latest in our series of coal ash community profiles. Our work on coal ash unfortunately becomes timely yet again, as news came out this week of a breach at a coal ash impoundment in North Carolina. This week’s profile was written by Sierra Club Apprentice Andrea Sanchez.

There is nothing little about Little Blue Run Dam, the coal fly ash impoundment that reaches into both Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Coal ash is the toxic by-product of burning coal for electricity – the Little Blue Run ash impoundment belongs to the Bruce Mansfield Plant. This plant is FirstEnergy’s largest coal-fired power plant, burning around seven million tons of coal annually.

At full capacity, the three plants that make up Bruce Mansfield complex produce four million gallons of coal slurry daily. This is where Little Blue comes in.

Seven miles of pipeline will bring you to a 1,694 acre disposal site known as Little Blue (see its eerie blue color in this Google Maps satellite image). By the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) own admission, Little Blue is one of 49 sites around the country whose dam currently has a High Hazard Potential rating. This rating means that if the dam holding back Little Blue’s toxic slurry – the largest earthen dam in the country – were to breach, it would result in probable loss of life, largely to communities across the river in Ohio.

In addition to the structural hazard, coal ash also contains toxic metals such as lead, mercury, arsenic, and selenium, to name a few, and so far EPA has not required special liners to ensure that coal ash does not contaminate nearby waterways.

Debbie Havens, of the West Virginia side of the impoundment, remembers the first time the energy company spoke to her about the expansion of the impoundment years ago. A man came to her home armed with a colorful brochure and said, “There will be swimming, boating, walking and bike trails, a place a family could spend time together.”

She told him, “I’m sorry sir, but I have a hard time believing that.” That was the first and only time that anyone came to her door. Now large properties are being bought off left and right to make room for more coal ash waste at Little Blue.

For those living near unlined coal ash impoundments the risk of cancer can be as high as 1 in 50, which is 2,000 times higher than EPA’s “acceptable cancer risk of 1 in 100,000.” This statistic only takes into account the risk of cancer from arsenic exposure in drinking water.

When looking at the entire list of toxins contained in coal ash, the health risks are even worse. Havens’ husband had his thyroid removed several years ago after being diagnosed with thyroid cancer and now Havens herself has a thyroid nodule which doctors are watching. Doctors also found three benign tumors doctors in her breast.

With no family history of thyroid problems, her endocrinologist has assessed that environmental exposure as the cause and told her, “You need to move or you will never survive this stuff.”

In her community three men have already died from cancer this year. One thing is sure, she said, “Life is a lot different than that pretty brochure 36 years ago.”

On the other side of the impoundment in Pennsylvania, Barb Reed and her son are living about a mile away from the site in Georgetown. Reed has lived in the area since 1978; her son is now living with her because he can no longer use his own water. His home is closer to the impoundment and after both FirstEnergy and the state Department of Environmental Protection found that the levels of arsenic in his water were exceeding the maximum EPA levels, he decided he had to leave his home.

“It’s terribly upsetting because he can’t even take showers or wash dishes, he’s had to leave his home, and he’s still paying a mortgage on it,” said Reed. “They haven’t even offered him a viable water supply because they claim it is not their fault.”

If the risk of cancer, the potential for contaminated water, and the destroyed landscape isn’t enough – there is also the smell of rotten eggs. “You can’t breathe because of the smell. Your throat burns, your eyes burns, everyday we’re surrounded by fly ash,” said Havens.

Even from a mile away Reed is reluctant to use her water because of the smell of rotten eggs coming from the tap. While she used to garden in her own backyard, she now grows vegetables out of buckets with store-bought soil to avoid eating contaminated produce.

It is time for EPA and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to treat coal ash as the toxic waste that it is. Both of Reed and Havens have attended the EPA coal ash public hearings in their areas hoping to get the agency to enact federally enforceable standards that will treat coal not like household garbage – but as toxic waste.

For one weekend each year in early May, Louisville, Kentucky, boasts an abnormally high concentration of horses, jockeys, mint juleps, and elaborate hats. Less than ten miles from Churchill Downs, the neighborhood of Riverside Gardens has been dealing with an abnormal and deadly concentration of toxic chemicals every day for more than 40 years. A low income neighborhood in an area of Louisville known for its concentration of chemical plants, landfills, and power plants, Riverside Gardens may soon be forced to deal with yet another threat: a second coal ash dump in their community.

Monica Burkhead thought she was living the American dream when she bought a house in Riverside Gardens at the age of 17. She was assured that the neighborhood was safe, but has since learned that she is surrounded by growing quantities of all forms of toxic waste. The sources of these toxins include 11 chemical plants, a 2.4 million cubic yard unlined chemical landfill that is one of the state’s oldest superfund sites, and multiple unlined coal ash waste ponds at the Cane Run coal plant owned by Louisville Gas and Electric.

The oldest of these coal ash ponds was built in the 1970s, but there are no records of any monitoring of any pond until 2005. The largest of these ponds is one of 49 nationwide that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated as “high hazard” – meaning that a dam failure like the 2008 disaster in Tennessee would probably result in loss of life. Ash in this pond looms 20 feet over the containment berm, 50 yards from homes and within 350 yards of the Ohio River.

Louisville Gas and Electric is currently seeking permits to “expand” the pond at the Cane Run coal plant by constructing a new 5.7 million cubic yard, 14-story-tall pond some 1,500 feet from the existing one. What little data can be obtained about the existing ponds shows that they have been leaking sulfates into local groundwater. Neither the coal plant nor the state government has made public any tests of the toxic heavy metals found in coal ash, including arsenic, selenium, and mercury.

Monica and her neighbors live in a community ravaged by cancer. EPA has found that people living near coal ash ponds have a risk of cancer greater than that of smoking a pack of cigarettes every day. Community organizers say that behind every door they knock on is someone with either cancer or kidney failure. When Monica took the community’s concerns to the chemical and coal companies, they told her that it was their lifestyles, and not the toxic contamination, that was making them sick. Monica doesn’t smoke or drink, eats healthily, and gets regular exercise. All of her family members except her husband have battled cancer. The industries evidently consider living in Riverside Gardens a lifestyle choice, even though the neighborhood existed long before plants that are now polluting it.

Resident Terri Humphrey expressed a common sentiment when she told a community meeting, “I believe the companies think that it’s already so bad down there that it doesn’t matter if they dump something else on us.”

Monica, Terri, and other Riverside Gardens residents will testify at the upcoming EPA coal ash hearing in Louisville on September 28th. Monica says that EPA can begin to repair her trust in government’s ability to protect communities by enacting a strong, federally enforceable rule that ends dangerous practices like the ones employed at the Cane Run plant.

Last spring, a group of children at nearby Farnsley Middle School were top 10 finalists in a competition to be “America’s Greenest School.” In the video they produced, students talk about their plans to manage the school’s waste more responsibly. Strong leadership from EPA and Administrator Lisa Jackson can make coal companies live up to the example set by the students in their own community.See www.sierraclub.org/coalash to learn more and take action on toxic coal ash.

The area around Surry County, Virginia, is already home to some sinister projects, including several major coal ash disposal sites and Michael Vick’s infamous dog fighting operation. One of the disposal sites is the local golf course, the Battlefield Golf Club. The green is sculpted with 1.5 million tons of coal fly-ash.

Now a major Virginia power provider, the Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC), wants to site a 1500 mega watt coal plant, accompanied by several hundred acres of ash disposal sites, along the Blackwater River in Surry.

This project, if completed, will be the largest coal-fired power plant in Virginia. Its coal ash will be stored in several landfill areas around the plant. If the power plant itself falls through, ODEC representatives have indicated an option of developing the site as an exclusive coal ash landfill.

Executives announced on Wednesday, September 8, that the project deadline is being pushed back from 2016 to 2020, citing concerns over pending federal regulations and lagging electricity demand. Though ODEC remains committed to pursuing the project, the delay comes as a welcome relief to local residents, and backs up arguments made by environmental and community groups that there is no pressing need for coal-fired power from such a massive plant.

Local residents like Betsy Shepard, mother of two, have been fighting ODEC tooth and nail since 2008, and the announcement comes as a major vindication of their efforts. Shepard is a busy full-time mom, but found the time to take a leading role in her community’s fight to curb the march of coal ash contamination.“I had no intentions of taking such an active role in the fight, but as is often the case in small communities, one has to step up and lend a hand when there is a need,” said Shepard.

In meetings with ODEC officials, Shepard and her fellow community organizers have met with flippant and dismissive comments.

In one instance, company officials told Shepard’s husband they will plant trees to block his view of the 650 foot smoke stacks that will accompany the plant. When he pointed out there are few trees in Virginia taller than 100 feet, the official replied, “Well, you won’t be able to see the smokestacks if you’re right up on [the trees].” Unfortunately for the residents of Surry, none of them live in trees.

When asked if they will provide a lifetime guarantee on the disposal site’s protective liners, the ODEC representative laughed and said, “Nothing lasts forever.”

Shepard replied, “Yes. That’s our fear.”

The new plant is of particular concern not only because of its size, but its location adjacent to the Blackwater River and its large area of surrounding wetlands, which feeds into the shallow aquifers that all 7,000 residents of Surry County rely on for fresh water.

Residents of the county use private wells, and the three incorporated towns have their own municipal water systems, all drawn from aquifers. There is no water treatment or reservoir in Surry County. Because the Dendron aquifer is unconfined and receives water directly from the surface, it is very susceptible to contamination. Anything that flows through the ground surface can quickly reach the water table. According to Shepard’s calculations, the coal ash sites will sit approximately 1,500 feet from Dendron’s main water source.

The proposed site is also within three miles of county schools, wedged between wetlands along the Blackwater River and a row of homes on main street Dendron, a small town within Surry.

Shepard is fearful of the changes this will bring to the quaint, small-town Virginia landscape. “The plant and ash piles would be, literally, in people’s backyards…picture Leave It to Beaver’s house with a massive industrial complex, 650-foot smokestacks, and 7-story tall ash piles directly behind it.”

The proximity to homes also creates air quality concerns. Surry County has the third highest asthma rates in the State of Virginia. In ODEC’s permit application to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, they describe the possibility of “fugitive emissions” and “wind erosion” from the vast ash stacks. Company officials sang a different tune at community meetings, saying the ash was secure and would only blow in a 100-year storm, claiming “zero [airborne] emissions.”

This clear disconnect between fact and rhetoric is especially frustrating to Shepard, who spent dozens of hours educating herself and her neighbors on the threats they will face, only to have industry officials call public meetings and spread misinformation to her community.

Most people in her town had no idea a massive coal plant is being proposed, let alone any stance on the issue. Shepard and her friends joke that “we know more about coal than we ever wanted to,” but their diligent fact-checking and research has helped inform her community about the risks of the proposed plant, and opposition is growing.

After word got out about the plant proposal, the town council meeting was “packed like sardines,” with people lined up out the door to comment. “Word spreads fast in a small town,” Shepard jokes. But thanks to her efforts to inform her neighbors and their effective organizing, every comment submitted was against the plant.

As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducts an ongoing series of nationwide hearings on re-classifying coal ash as the toxic waste it is, the voices of community leaders like Betsy Shepard will continue to be instrumental in providing real stories to back up the hard data on the dangers of coal ash. Click here to find out more about a hearing near you, and how you can add your voice to the growing call to protect American communities from the dangers of coal ash.

EPA needs to set federal standards for coal ash disposal to protect communities like Surry from increased and continued exposure to known toxins. As more communities speak out on this issue, the harder it will be for federal officials to ignore their calls for clean air, clean water, and an end to coal’s toxic legacy in America.

]]>https://grist.org/article/threat-remains-despite-va-coal-plant-delay/feed/1New Coal Ash Video and Facebook App Aim to Educate, Engagehttps://grist.org/article/new-coal-ash-video-and-facebook-app-aim-to-educate-engage/
https://grist.org/article/new-coal-ash-video-and-facebook-app-aim-to-educate-engage/#respondWed, 15 Sep 2010 00:46:57 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=39623You’ve seen our push against toxic coal ash continue over the past few months as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeks public comment on how to regulate coal ash. Our push continues this week with the unveiling of a new coal ash video we produced and a Facebook application. Take a look at the video first:

Left over after coal is burned, coal ash contains a dangerous mix of arsenic, mercury, lead and other pollution, pollution known to cause cancer and other serious illnesses. As was noted in the video, living near some coal ash sites can be more dangerous than smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.

To keep the pressure on EPA to regulate coal ash based on how toxic it is, we are launching new efforts to educate and engage citizens, many of whom are unaware that they may live near a toxic coal ash site.

This week we launched a new Facebook application,the Toxic Coal Ash Site Locator, which allows you to find out how close you, your friends and family live to these toxic dumps.

]]>https://grist.org/article/new-coal-ash-video-and-facebook-app-aim-to-educate-engage/feed/0Coal Ash, A Rancher's Viewhttps://grist.org/article/coal-ash-a-ranchers-view/
https://grist.org/article/coal-ash-a-ranchers-view/#respondThu, 09 Sep 2010 22:13:01 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=39479The Environmental Protection Agency is in the middle of a series of public hearings at sites around the country to gather input on new protections from toxic coal ash. This week’s blog post comes from Sierra Club Apprentice Jenny Kordick.

—

After watching a deer refuse to drink water from a reservoir on a hot summer day last August, Colstrip, Montana area ranchers knew something was wrong. The water, found to contain toxic levels of sulfates, was traced back to a coal ash dump.

Coal ash contamination in Colstrip, Montana dates back nearly 30 years. Colstrip sits on one of the largest coal deposits in North America, and is home to four coal-fired power plants owned by Pennsylvania Power and Light (PP&L).The company disposes of coal ash, the toxic by-product of burning coal, in wet ash dumps, known as settling ponds,in the area.

Insufficient pond linings and poor construction techniques, in addition to lack of state environmental regulation,have led to widespread contamination of water resources in Colstrip. “The state of Montana has had every opportunity to right this wrong, and has failed in every way,” said Clint McRae, a Colstrip area rancher.

The ranching community in Colstrip, including McRae, expressed concern about the ash settling ponds used to dispose of coal ash, but were assured by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality the ponds would not leak, and if they did, the power plants would be shut down.

“We were lied to.” McRae stated. “We trusted our state and federal agencies to represent our best interests, and keep us from damage. This has not happened.”

The livelihood of McRae and other ranchers in Colstrip is threatened by toxic coal ash, as healthy water quality is critical to the success of ranching operations. Simply put, cows drinking toxic water will die. Two coal ash ponds in the area were found to be leaking water containing 16 times the amount of sulfates needed to cause death in cattle.

Instead of cleaning up the coal ash contamination and fixing the leaks, PP&L has opted for a cheaper method to silence the issue. This involves fencing off contaminated ponds, and buying up damaged and polluted land, including the land containing the reservoir where the deer refused to drink.

PP&L is getting by with this for now, but McRae, whose family has been in the area for five generations, makes one thing clear: “Our places are not for sale.”

In 2008, PP&L settled for $25 million with 60 homeowners in Colstrip whose drinking water became contaminated. McRae, who was not involved in the lawsuit, is acting as a voice for his family and neighbors that settled with PP&L and can no longer speak out on the issue. McRae traveled to the Denver coal ash hearing last week to speak out for strong, federally enforceable protections from coal ash as the Environmental Protection Agency considers a proposal to federally regulate toxic coal ash disposal for the first time-a proposal that, after more than two decades, may finally help stop leaking coal ash ponds and protect the families in Colstrip.

The Denver hearing McRae attended was the second of seven hearings nationwide that are being held to gather public opinion on how to regulate toxic coal ash disposal. See www.sierraclub.org/coalash for more information and to find out how you can tell the EPA what you think.

]]>https://grist.org/article/coal-ash-a-ranchers-view/feed/0Fighting Coal Ash, Bureaucracy and Confusionhttps://grist.org/article/fighting-coal-ash-bureaucracy-and-confusion/
https://grist.org/article/fighting-coal-ash-bureaucracy-and-confusion/#respondFri, 03 Sep 2010 03:14:08 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=39380As I have mentioned on this blog before, the Environmental Protection Agency is currently holding public hearings at sites around the country to hear your input on draft regulations for the disposal of toxic coal ash. This week’s blog post comes from Sierra Student Coalition Apprentice Margaret Hoerath, who writes about an activist who travelled to the coal ash hearing in Virginia earlier this week.

—

“This is a bureaucratic mini-Katrina because FEMA doesn’t know what’s going on here,” said James McGrath, a citizen from Giles County in Southwest Virginia, where a coal ash disposal site is located.

Coal ash is the toxic byproduct left over after burning coal and contains elevated levels of dangerous poisons such as mercury, lead, and arsenic. The Cumberland Park Project, essentially a coal ash disposal site dressed up as a real estate development project, is prompting concerns from local citizens like McGrath.

There have been dozens of documented cases where coal ash has contaminated surface water or groundwater in at least 23 states, according to a 2007 EPA study. There are some places near coal ash disposal sites that have water with levels of heavy metals tens and even hundreds of times above federal drinking water standards (U.S. EPA, Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, July 9, 2007). McGrath points out that the disposal site is in a 100 year floodplain and is “unlined,” which allows toxins from the coal ash to leak into the area’s groundwater and potentially into someone’s drinking water downriver.

McGrath is particularly concerned about the lack of public participation in the approval process for the project, and the fact that the county administration dodged the proper Federal Emergency Management Administration permitting process by misrepresenting the materials to be used at the site on their application. The administration told FEMA that they were using dirt fill materials instead of specifying that that they were using toxic coal ash from American Electric Power. By misrepresenting the materials to be used on their application, the Cumberland Park Project was able to circumvent the local public hearing process that should have been required.

For McGrath, a 60 year old veteran who was with the 1st marine division in Vietnam, this process violates his democratic values. McGrath explains that it took him two years and eleven months to get a grip on the ins and outs of the permitting process and to understand all the players and beneficiaries in the project.

“If it was Chinese, I could go to the Mandarin opera and understand it,” McGrath explained. “It’s a labyrinth. [This permitting process is] intentionally done this way to confuse people.”

McGrath explained that it is important to understand the permitting process in order to understand the strategies used to get Cumberland Park approved. McGrath has worked on this issue by asking the key players tough questions and by shedding light on all the decision makers involved. He needed to do a lot of digging to find the information he needed to inform others. He became well-versed in the proposed project and was a major source of information for Concerned Citizens of Giles County, which is the group that was formed directly in response to the Cumberland Park Project. McGrath calls himself a long-time environmental activist and found out about this project through involvement in another local environmental group.

“We need more citizens to get involved in activism,” McGrath said. He said that he wishes young people would take more of a role in their government.

McGrath calls many of the moves that the county and AEP used to usher the project in as “slick.” By providing incorrect information on their FEMA developmental permit application, the county avoided having public hearings and prevented local residents from taking a stand on the project. Despite the fact that many coal ash ponds and disposal sites have been shown to leak over time, the Cumberland Park project is allowed to be built in a floodplain and without a composite liner. Since the project is being touted as a development project where future businesses and buildings could be built, bringing jobs to the area, it is termed a “beneficial use” project and slips under the radar.

Industry lobbyists have aimed to limit public participation and they accomplished this by ensuring that a “beneficial use” clause was part of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality permitting process. The “beneficial use” clause was part of the reason that Giles County did not have to hold any public hearings.

Through public participation and pressuring public officials back home, McGrath has shed light on the dark side of the project in an effort to create change. McGrath says working on this issue was like a full time job. After driving five hours from Southwest Virginia to testify at the Washington DC Environmental Protection Agency coal ash hearing on August. 30th, McGrath now plans to stop working on the issue. He wants to let the issue take a life of its own and devote more time to his woodworking jobs, tending his property and spending time with his family.

“I’m going to go back to being a grandparent,” he said. “I haven’t seen one of my grandchildren for a third of their life.”

The Washington DC hearing McGrath attended was the first of seven hearings nationwide that are being held to evaluate regulations regarding the disposal of coal ash. See http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/coalash/ for more information and to find out how you can tell the EPA what you think.

This excerpt from a recent 60 Minutes story on toxic coal waste sums up the current trouble with the millions of tons of toxic ash left over each year from burning coal for energy.

While scientists and experts know, and have known for years that coal ash is full of harmful pollution that can cause cancer and other serious illnesses, the issue flew largely under the radar until the massive TVA disaster. Even now nobody, including the EPA, has a full picture of how much of this toxic waste is out there, where it is, or if it is staying put. The coal industry has dumped millions of tons of its toxic leftovers at thousands of sites across the country with no federal oversight, and utterly inadequate state policies.

The result? Toxic ash dump sites lacking even basic safety protections, drinking water sources poisoned and people unknowingly at risk.

A new investigative report reveals more than three dozen new sites in 21 states where toxic coal waste has made water supplies unsafe. These sites are the latest in a steadily growing number of waters known to be contaminated by poor management of coal ash. So far more than 130 cases of coal ash contamination have been found in 34 states, and even EPA admits this could be just the tip of the iceberg.

Many state agencies (like those in Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico and Tennessee to name a few) require no monitoring of waters near toxic coal ash sites. Other states, like West Virginia, do such a poor job of monitoring as to be useless. About 70 percent of the toxic coal ash generated nationwide is dumped in states that don’t require monitoring to see if toxic contamination is leaking from coal ash sites.

The report shows that states responsible for only four of the coal ash sites have required an investigation to determine the scale of the pollution. Not one state has required the toxic pollution to be stopped, let alone cleaned up. There is a clear need for the EPA to step in where the states have failed to protect our communities.

Lisa Jackson and the EPA have recognized this and the agency is currently considering whether and how to regulate toxic coal ash. Monday the EPA will begin a series of hearings across the country to gather public comment on the new protections. The first hearing will be in Arlington, Virginia, followed by hearings in Colorado, Texas, North Carolina, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Kentucky over the next month. Whether you attend a hearing in person or submit comments online I urge you to send a strong message to EPA that federally enforceable protections are absolutely necessary in the face of the growing risk from coal’s toxic waste.

Contrary to the impression you may have been left with after reading a recent Associated Press piece about the future (or lack thereof) of coal in this country, the reign of “King Coal” is ending.

Though the AP piece makes some good points (specifically, noting that “the process [for producing electricity from coal] has changed little since Thomas Edison built the first plant in 1882” and that even after $3.4 billion in stimulus spending, there is currently “no way of capturing carbon” from coal-fired power plants), the idea that coal-fired power is expanding as opposed to rapidly declining is inaccurate.

Just a few years ago, “King Coal” was hoping to build 151 new coal-fired power plants while the Bush Administration’s coal-friendly federal regulators were “on the job.” This was a troubling idea for many reasons. From the mine, to the plant, to the ash pond, coal is our dirtiest and most dangerous energy source. It causes four of the five leading causes of death in the United States, including heart disease, cancer, stroke and chronic lower respiratory diseases. It destroys mountains and releases toxic mercury into communities. The carbon pollution emitted by coal-fired power plants is responsible for more than 30% of our country’s total global warming pollution.

In response to this Coal Rush, the Sierra Club in 2005 launched a nationwide Beyond Coal campaign with a broad swath of allies to block these plans.

As of today, the Sierra Club and our allies have blocked 129 new coal plants from being constructed, keeping well more than 530 million tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. No new coal plants have broken ground since 2008 and clean energy is filling the vacuum, with record amounts of both wind and solar power projects up and running in 2009. Yes, there were some coal plants that sneaked through and came online in 2008 with enormous help from the Bush Administration’s coal-friendly permitting process. That number of coal plants, however, is a fraction of what was planned and represents significantly less than the growth in clean energy during the same time period- growth that would not have been possible if the energy market had been swamped with filthy coal. The wind industry alone added 8,300 MW to the grid in 2008- more than five times the 1,400 MW of new coal added to the grid that year.

Make no mistake, the Coal Rush is over. The costs of the plants that did make it through should serve as a reminder than no clean energy project has ever taken five years to build and witnessed 100 percent cost overruns. The steps to finally move America beyond coal have begun.

We are now in phase two of our efforts to dethrone King Coal, get our energy infrastructure out of the 19th century and build a modern and clean power sector. This phase involves retiring and replacing the oldest and dirtiest coal plants and opening up more market share for clean energy. Since January 2009, more than 8,300 megawatts of existing coal (about 16 average-sized coal plants) have been slated for retirement in the next decade. The tens of thousands of dedicated grassroots activists who first help to stop the coal rush are now busy phasing out outdated existing coal plants.

While we have made significant progress over the past few years, our work is clearly far from done.

It was an outrage when earlier this summer, corporate polluters relied on a minority of Senators to block action to cut coal plant pollution when conservationists, labor, veterans, communities of faith, small businesses and everyday citizens all agreed it was the right thing to do. Failing to address this problem puts all the collective future of our country, and our planet, in jeopardy. Scientists tell us that to avert runaway global warming we need to phase out coal plants in less than two decades.

Ending coal’s contribution to global warming, as well as the smog that plagues most of our cities, is a top priority for the Sierra Club, and we will continue to fight for the necessary changes in federal policy. With Congress stymied by a minority of Senators, we are engaged in other venues to address the litany of serious problems caused by coal.

Lisa Jackson at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is busy working on enforcing clean air and clean water laws designed to end the regulatory loopholes too-long exploited by King Coal. After eight years of Bush Administration backsliding and inaction, the safeguards seek to put public welfare back on top of the priority list. Among those safeguards are efforts such as:

We know that continuing our dependence on coal chains us to dirty energy and prevents us from making the changes we need to bring about a clean, secure energy future. If our economy is to be revitalized by the clean-energy industry, if the health and safety of families is to be considered, if we want to have any hope of stopping the worst effects of climate change, King Coal’s reign cannot continue.

We have made unprecedented progress in recent years to prevent new coal plants and massive amounts of new pollution for decades into the future, but our work is not done. Whether it is pursuing federal legislation that will cut carbon pollution or pushing and supporting Lisa Jackson as she enforces the law to protect public health and our communities, we will continue the fight to move our country beyond coal.

]]>https://grist.org/article/the-reign-of-king-coal-is-ending/feed/0Burning Coal + Hot Days = Unhealthy Air Warningshttps://grist.org/article/burning-coal-hot-days-unhealthy-air-warnings/
https://grist.org/article/burning-coal-hot-days-unhealthy-air-warnings/#respondWed, 11 Aug 2010 00:40:18 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=38945Yesterday and today are code orange unhealthy air alert days in the Washington, DC, region where I live. The 95+ degree temperatures and excessive ground-level ozone create extremely unhealthy air – especially for kids, senior citizens, and people with pre-existing health conditions.

These aren’t the first days this summer where we’ve had these warnings, and I know that the Washington, DC, region is not alone in its unhealthy air warnings. Temperatures are soaring across the U.S. – and while one major source of air pollution is vehicles, the other major cause is burning coal for energy.

And with this comes new research that poor air quality days aren’t just a struggle for your lungs, they’re just as tough on your heart. This is news from the combined efforts of the American Lung Association and the American Heart Association, who are reminding us that while some pollution levels may be decreasing, we’re learning that air pollution is actually much worse for us than originally thought.

While risks to individuals are small and are dwarfed by risk factors such as smoking, high blood pressure and obesity, the overall effect on the public is big, says Robert Brook, a cardiologist at the University of Michigan and lead author of the report.

Much of the worrisome data concerns “fine particulate matter” – tiny bits of soot that come from burning coal, oil, diesel fuel or wood, mostly in factories, vehicles and power plants.

“These fine particles get deep into the lungs,” says Norman Edelman, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association….It’s also possible that some fine particles seep into blood vessels and the blood itself, causing direct damage. Dirty air also may trigger irregular nervous system activity that affects the heart and blood vessels.

Some in Congress want to gut EPA’s Clean Air Act powers – and yet air pollution levels are so dangerous that these unhealthy air warnings recommend that kids should not be outside. Kids should not be outside in August? Right. Summer vacation is still in full force, so kids are outside, and that means they are at risk of permanent lung damage because the oil and coal companies are holding congress hostage.

We are literally killing ourselves by burning coal, and yet the coal industry continues to fight against the Clean Air Act and any safeguards that might prevent them from spewing their pollutants into the air.

This is shameful. The coal industry would rather make money than clean itself up.

We must support clean, renewable energy sources that don’t pollute the air and contribute to unhealthy air warnings when temperatures climb. Coal-fired power plants spew millions of tons of pollution into the air ever year, which spreads from state to state and causes numerous health issues.

Thankfully, EPA is acting to help states be good neighbors with the proposed ‘Good Neighbor / Transport‘ rule that will systematically and efficiently cut pollution from dozens of coal plants that would otherwise spread across the country. The rule is intended to help downwind states achieve EPA’s national ambient air quality standards for ozone and fine particles.

We applaud this common sense approach by Lisa Jackson and EPA to protect public health and help states clean up their air efficiently and cost-effectively.

It’s true – 139 House members and 36 Senators either signed onto letters asking as much, or wrote their own letters (links to the letters are farther down in this post). What’s worse is that the letters are full of misleading information and inaccuracies about the public health risks of coal ash.

Coal-fired power plants produce approximately 150 million tons of waste per year, making coal combustion waste the second largest industrial waste stream in the U.S. When coal ash comes into contact with water, toxic heavy metals can leach out of the waste and contaminate groundwater and surface water.

One of the House letters to Administrator Jackson refers to an EPA document from 2000 that supposedly concludes that coal ash does not warrant regulation as a hazardous waste – but in reality that document says,

After careful review of the present disposal of these wastes, we believe these additional measures are needed to ensure that public health and the environment are fully protected. If the states and industry do not take steps to address these wastes adequately in a reasonable amount of time or if EPA identifies additional risks to public health, EPA will revisit this decision to determine whether a hazardous approach is needed.

Consider these facts: There are more than 2,000 coal ash storage sites across the U.S. and dozens of documented cases where coal ash has contaminated surface water or groundwater in at least 23 states. (U.S. EPA, Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, July 9, 2007.)

And the latest EPA test results released in December 2009 show that the heavy metals seep out of coal ash at much higher rates than previously understood, poisoning water with arsenic and selenium at levels hundreds of times greater than the federal drinking water standards. Clearly, EPA is right in proposing stringent protections for toxic coal ash.

The House letter also claims that “states have effectively been regulating” coal ash – but in reality state laws governing coal combustion waste disposal are usually weak or non-existent, as exemplified in the growing cases of water contamination putting communities at risk across the country.

Further, both the House and Senate letters advance faulty claims that stringent federal safeguards for coal ash would stigmatize the coal ash recycling industry (coal is often recycled into concrete, bricks, etc…), with the Senate letter claiming even the proposed idea of this type of regulation has caused a downturn in the market. What these letters choose to ignore is that EPA’s proposals would completely exempt coal ash that’s encapsulated from water and safely recycled into construction materials.

EPA noted a U.S. Green Building Council representative’s affirmation that Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design incentives would remain for fly ash in concrete even under a broader (coal combustion residual) hazardous waste classification. If USGBC and EPA continue to recognize fly ash as an environmentally beneficial portland cement substitute, the proposed rule states,

“The use of this material is unlikely to decrease solely because of ‘stigma’ concerns. We believe it is unlikely (the American Society for Testing and Materials) will prohibit the use of fly ash in concrete under its standards solely because of a determination that fly ash is regulated under subtitle C of (the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act), especially given that [such usage] is accepted [worldwide] as a practice that improves the performance of concrete. It is one of the most cost-effective, near-term strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and, there is no evidence of meaningful risk–nor any reason to think there might be–involved with its use in cement or concrete.”

We need strong, federally enforceable safeguards for coal ash. Research from government and private scientists over the years shows an increasing concern for public health if exposed to coal ash’s toxins. Some studies have shown that these coal ash dumps are so toxic that they can increase nearby residents’ cancer risk to as high as a staggering 1 in 50.

The Keystone XL is a massive pipeline designed to carry tar sands oil from Canada into the U.S., and we’ve long called its EIS inadequate. Now our nation’s environmental watchdog is putting its weight and expertise behind that assessment.

EPA is charged with protecting Americans’ health and safety, and its concerns about this pipeline underscore and validate what Americans are saying across the country.

EPA is demanding more than 30 additional pieces of information needed based on grave concerns such as “the Draft EIS does not fully identify and address the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority, low-income and Tribal populations.”

EPA also raises serious concerns about the threats tar sands pose to the health and safety of American communities, which underscores the need to proceed with caution when it comes to making a decision of this magnitude about the country’s energy future.

And given what we’ve witnessed in the Gulf of Mexico, where rubbers stamps for the oil industry were all too common, we welcome this call for a more thorough and rigorous approach to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

Here’s just a partial list of what EPA is asking of the State Department, given the woefully deficient consideration of these environmental and human impacts:

– A broader assessment of the need for this pipeline, including a “robust analysis of options for meeting national energy and climate policy objectives”; – A more thorough investigation into the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project, including a consideration of Canadian tar sands development (which EPA asserts is an action clearly connected to building the pipeline and must be considered); – A lifecycle assessment of “well-to-wheel” (greenhouse gas) emissions generated from tar sands; – A better understanding of mitigation measures that could be taken to decrease the emissions from tar sands developments; – An assessment of the air quality impacts of refining tar sands, and a more in-depth look at the environmental justice ramifications of these air quality concerns; – A much more thorough emergency response plan, including a consideration of the specific impacts to water bodies or a leak or spill of the chemical dilutent needed to transport heavy tar sands oil; – A consideration of the safety waiver [the Department of Transportation] is considering granting to TransCanada, with special attention paid to the sulfur content of the fuel and how this would impact the thinner steel which would be used if the waiver were granted; – A complete assessment of all the project’s impacts to wetlands; – A consideration of the impacts of Canadian tar sands developments on migratory birds.

That list alone underscores the high risk and hefty cost of pursuing toxic tar sands oil at the expense of America’s clean energy future.

We applaud EPA’s scrutiny.

All of the additional analysis requested by EPA must be prepared to allow for a robust consideration of the impacts of this pipeline, and whether or not is it in our nation’s interest.

And because of an executive order, these requests from EPA mean that the Keystone XL plan cannot go through until the Department of State can deliver completed analysis addressing all of these points.

We have said all along, an open and honest dialogue about our energy future leads to the conclusion that we should say no to this filthy project. Instead, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should say yes to clean energy, yes to clean air, and yes to an oil-free future.

]]>https://grist.org/article/game-changer-epa-asserts-tar-sands-pipeline-environmental-analysis-is-inade/feed/0Big Cities Want Big Changes in Energyhttps://grist.org/article/big-cities-want-big-changes-in-energy/
https://grist.org/article/big-cities-want-big-changes-in-energy/#respondFri, 16 Jul 2010 00:53:30 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=38412Today I’ll focus on yet another community suffering from coal’s pollution – but this community is a little bit larger, and it’s on the front end of an emerging trend. The city is Chicago and it’s starting what could be a national movement to clean up dirty energy in the inner city.

Some of our oldest and dirtiest coal plants are located in major cities across the U.S.; and they are often located in areas with other major pollution sources, exposing residents of these densely populated areas to higher levels of harmful pollution than their neighbors.

What’s happening now in Chicago is just the beginning as residents of these communities organize and rise up against these environmental injustices, finding ways to clean up their air and water.

In Chicago, more people live near the city’s two old coal plants than any other coal plant in the nation. The plants, located on the southwest side of Chicago, cause 40 pre-mature deaths, 500 emergency room visits and 2,800 asthma attacks every year. Chicago also has one of the highest asthma rates in the country, and the city’s asthma hospitalization rate is nearly double the national average. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, on average, one out of seven school-aged children has asthma; in a number of Chicago-area neighbors, upwards to one out of three children suffer from asthma.

Today in the Windy City, more than 50 local and national organizations, joined by local community members and elected leaders kicked off a ward by ward effort.

“Like many working-class communities of color around the country, Pilsen (a Chicago neighborhood) is inundated with multiple pollution sources, the worst of which is the Fisk plant,” said Jerry Mead-Lucero, member of Pilsen Environmental Rights and Reform Organization (PERRO), “Your race or class should not determine whether or not you have a healthy environment in which to live.”

The groups are working to pass the Clean Power Ordinance introduced by Chicago Alderman Joe Moore in April. The ordinance will require the coal plant operators to reduce particulate matter pollution (soot) from the coal plants by 90% and global warming pollution (CO2) pollution by 50%, resulting in significant health benefits for neighboring communities. The ordinance currently has nine cosponsors and the coalition has collected close to 1,000 signatures and letters from citizens asking their aldermen to support the ordinance.

“We are looking to the City Council and Mayor Daley to not only to protect the health of its citizens, but also lead the country towards a clean energy future,” said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune, who was at the kick off event.

This Chicago event is just another example of action against coal and for clean energy. All over the U.S. we’ve seen local residents uniting to protect public and environmental health from the massive pollution spewed out from coal-fired power plants. Together we can make these changes.

]]>https://grist.org/article/big-cities-want-big-changes-in-energy/feed/0Ashley Judd is Doing the Right Thinghttps://grist.org/article/ashley-judd-is-doing-the-right-thing/
Sat, 10 Jul 2010 03:47:58 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=38299My colleague, Sierra Club Conservation Director Sarah Hodgdon, just wrote this excellent piece on Ashley Judd and I wanted to share it here:

Actress Ashley Judd has recently been the target of some very harsh criticism and language from the coal industry in Appalachia. This is not surprising behavior from the coal industry, since Big Coal often resorts to personal attacks when they feel like their dirty, dangerous, expensive way of life is threatened.

This harsh language and attacks are coming in response to Judd’s June speech at the National Press Club where she railed against mountaintop removal coal mining as “the rape of Appalachia.” (We blogged about that speech right here). I was at that speech and found it very compelling – Judd has been a longtime critic of mountaintop removal coal mining.

Judd is a native of eastern Kentucky, so the destructive practice of mountaintop removal coal mining hits close to home for her. Her June speech discussed in detail the harsh realities that this form of mining and coal in general is having on Appalachia – including massive environmental degradation and the economics showing that the coal industry is hurting the region far more than it is helping.

The real statement behind these coal industry attacks is that when it comes down to the issues, the coal industry can only respond with personal attacks because they know that Judd – and everyone else speaking out against coal – is correct.

We’ve see the coal industry intimidate activists and spend huge amounts of money of lobbying and smearing good people, but we don’t hear about solutions.

As we’ve said before, Judd is no slouch on this issue. Not only did she grow up in the impacted areas, but she’s also done extensive research during her graduate school time at Harvard University.

Ashley Judd knows what she’s talking about, she is absolutely correct, and we applaud her for using her celebrity to help bring attention to such a devastating issue. We must end mountaintop removal coal mining. We don’t have time for personal attacks.

]]>Ashley1EPA Takes Action to Protect People from Dangerous Coal Pollutionhttps://grist.org/article/epa-takes-action-to-protect-people-from-dangerous-coal-pollution/
https://grist.org/article/epa-takes-action-to-protect-people-from-dangerous-coal-pollution/#respondFri, 09 Jul 2010 01:28:09 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=38266How’s this for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fulfilling its role to protect environmental and public health: On Tuesday, EPA proposed a rule that would prevent between 14,000 and 36,000 premature deaths annually.

The Transport Rule would set stronger emissions standards for the dangerous air pollution emitted from coal-fired power plants in the eastern United States. This new rule would replace the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which had been struck down by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2008.

While a thorough review and comment period remains to be completed, this is a positive step forward for people who want clean air.

The harmful pollution coal-fired power plants emit into the air does not just endanger people in the immediate vicinity of the plant. Pollution from coal plants is carried downwind, endangering people throughout the entire eastern United States.

This rule addresses the reality that dangerous pollution doesn’t recognize state borders. Just as the oil gusher has now hit every Gulf state, the pollution from coal-fired power plants drifts downwind into people’s lungs throughout a region – hence why another way of talking about this rule is as a ‘Good Neighbor’ rule.

Coupled with other EPA rules, the Transport Rule will achieve a 71% reduction in sulfur dioxide and a 52% reduction in nitrogen oxide from 2005 levels in the states the rule applies to.

These pollutants covered by this rule are precursors to ozone, which is incredibly dangerous to human health. Pollutants like ozone and particulate matter (better known as smog and soot) from coal-fired pollution have been found to cause respiratory illness (including asthma and bronchitis), as well as aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease. It is absolutely essential that EPA do everything in its power to limit the damage these pollutants do to millions of people throughout the United States.

The statistics published with the rule make a very compelling case. According to EPA, the Transport Rule would yield up to $290 billion in annual health benefits, ‘including avoiding an estimated 14,000 to 36,000 premature deaths, 23,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 21,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1.9 million days when people miss school or work due to ozone- and particle pollution-related symptoms.’

This is a great step from EPA to clean up the air. We will stay engaged throughout this process to ensure people’s health and welfare are protected.

]]>https://grist.org/article/epa-takes-action-to-protect-people-from-dangerous-coal-pollution/feed/0Senator Robert Byrd: An Appreciationhttps://grist.org/article/senator-robert-byrd-an-appreciation/
https://grist.org/article/senator-robert-byrd-an-appreciation/#respondThu, 01 Jul 2010 23:40:57 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=38133This post was co-written by Mary Anne Hitt of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, who is also a native West Virginian.

Ed had made his two-month, one-man pilgrimage to ask Senator Byrd to build a new school for the students of Marsh Fork Elementary, which is located immediately beneath an earthen dam holding back 2.8 billion gallons of coal sludge, next to a dust-spewing coal processing plant, and adjacent to a massive mountaintop removal mining operation.

Senator Byrd, one of the most powerful men in America, personally received Ed at his office. They prayed together, and tears were shed by all. Senator Byrd told Ed that he would do what he could to help, though it meant challenging Massey Energy, the now-notorious coal company that ran the coal operation and insisted the school was perfectly safe.

In 2009, Byrd announced his support for moving the school. When Massey initially balked at contributing money for a new school, Byrd blasted the company, stating “This is about companies that blatantly disregard human life and safety because of greed.” He continued,

Such arrogance suggests a blatant disregard for the impact of [Massey’s] mining practices on our communities, residents and particularly our children. These are children’s lives we are talking about.

After Senator Byrd made his statement, most WV leaders quickly followed by announcing their support for a new school. Just a few days ago, the last of the funding was finally secured to build a new school in a safe location for the students of Marsh Fork.

While many may remember Senator Byrd as a supporter of coal at any cost, that view became more nuanced in recent years. As we remember the legacy of Senator Robert Byrd this week, we wanted to note his amazing change of opinion on the issue of burning coal for power.

Senator Byrd was one of the coal industry’s most strident defenders for most of his long tenure in the Senate, but during his final years he tempered that support and signaled that West Virginia must begin to look at a future beyond coal.

Senator Byrd surprised many – including those of us here at the Sierra Club – with his December 2009 commentary entitled “Coal Must Embrace the Future.” While he did continue to tout the importance of coal, he also discussed how the coal industry must wake up and face the new reality facing West Virginia: the majority of Americans and Members of Congress oppose mountaintop removal mining, and the transition to clean energy is not something this coal mining state can afford to ignore. He wrote:

Change has been a constant throughout the history of our coal industry. West Virginians can choose to anticipate change and adapt to it, or resist and be overrun by it. One thing is clear. The time has arrived for the people of the Mountain State to think long and hard about which course they want to choose.

To be part of any solution, one must first acknowledge a problem. To deny the mounting science of climate change is to stick our heads in the sand and say “deal me out.” West Virginia would be much smarter to stay at the table.

Byrd also refused to support Senate efforts to block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from addressing global warming. In commenting on one such proposal by Senator Lisa Murkowski to overturn EPA’s finding that global warming pollution endangers public health and welfare, Byrd wrote:

The Murkowski “Disapproval Resolution” overturns the “endangerment finding.” This in essence is like voting to assert that there is no climate change or global warming going on, and to dismiss scientific facts that already exist.

While Senator Byrd continued to support coal until the end, he also recognized that change was inevitable, and that fear-mongering and reactionary politics would only hurt the people of West Virginia.

Following his 2006 meeting with Ed Wiley, Senator Byrd issued this statement:

I admire the determination and dedication that Ed and Debbie Wiley have shown. The Bible teaches that if we have faith of a mustard seed, we can move mountains. I believe that the Wileys have that faith.

Since Ed Wiley’s walk, countless coalfield residents have traveled to Washington to meet with Senator Byrd, his staff, and other decision makers. As a result, proposals to end mountaintop removal are gaining ground in Congress and in the White House.

As we mourn the passing of Senator Byrd, let us remember that heroic acts by ordinary people can move those at the heights of power, and let us continue to demand decision makers work to move us beyond coal and toward a clean energy future.

]]>https://grist.org/article/senator-robert-byrd-an-appreciation/feed/0Report: Coal Industry Harms TN and WV More Than It Helpshttps://grist.org/article/report-coal-industry-harms-tn-and-wv-more-than-it-helps/
https://grist.org/article/report-coal-industry-harms-tn-and-wv-more-than-it-helps/#respondThu, 24 Jun 2010 01:38:32 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=37939Two reports released this week reveal that when it comes to the bottom line of state budgets, the coal industry costs Tennessee and West Virginia more than it provides.

These reports are among the first to examine actual revenues and expenditures related to coal industry employment, taxes and subsidies in Tennessee and West Virginia. Downstream Strategies produced the reports.

For Tennessee (PDF), the report found that the coal industry contributed just over $1 million to the state budget – less than one-tenth of one percent of the state’s total revenue in 2009. That benefit was overwhelmed by the costs imposed by the industry, including state subsidies, regulation, road repair and mine reclamation costs. The bottom line was an approximate net economic loss of $3 million for the people of Tennessee in 2009.

Though coal brings in a bigger percentage of state revenues in West Virginia (PDF), the end result matches that of Tennessee; the $600.7 million in total revenues coal brought to West Virginia was about $97.5 million less than it cost the state to support the industry.

“It should be no surprise – coal is not king in the West Virginia economy, even though our decision makers act as if it is,” said Jim Sconyers, chair of the West Virginia Sierra Club. “It is a total outrage that the long-suffering West Virginia taxpayer is forced to pay millions of dollars so the filthy rich coal companies can destroy our roads, mountains and communities.”

And so we learn that even beyond the human and environmental health damage the coal industry does, the economic damage is there as well. More reports like these are coming, and one has already been done on Kentucky. (PDF)

We know Tennessee and West Virginia, and all the other states where Big Coal is trying to be king, can do better with clean energy. We don’t need to sacrifice our health, our economy and our environment to power our nation.